From: ccie2b@xxxxxxx
Date: Tue Jan 16 2001 - 00:31:33 GMT-3
Thanks! I needed that.
> I just got back from taking Bruce Caslow's course (excellent, btw) and this
> came up in discussion. Our conclusion was that in "newer" versions of IOS
> Cisco probably leaves inarp on despite static mappings (a change from older
> versions). Static Frame-Relay mappings can still be extremely useful - not
> all protocols will allow spoke-spoke pings without the map statements.
> I fully agree with an earlier response - know how to make it work with and
> without maps statements because you never know what restrictions the lab
> will throw at you.
> Bruce's rule of them was "if they'll let you nail it down (Frame maps,
> dialer maps, speed, duplex, etc.) then nail it down."
> Rob.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Cameron, John
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:17 AM
> To: 'Stephen Masraum'; Nigel Taylor; CCIE_Lab Group Study
> Cc: Bryant Andrews
> Subject: RE: Frame Relay...Inverse-Arp..?
> I'm using a 11.3 version and have consistently had the same results. Is
> Caslow wrong when he stated that Inverse Arp for a specific DLCI gets
> disable after a reload if you have the same DLCI mapped in a FR map
> statement?
> JC
> C i s c o S y s t e m s John Cameron
> Network Engineer
> Research Triangle Park
> || || Cisco Systems, Inc.
> || ||
> |||| ||||
> ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Masraum [mailto:masraum@swbell.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:35 AM
> To: Nigel Taylor; CCIE_Lab Group Study; Cisco Group Study
> Cc: Bryant Andrews
> Subject: RE: Frame Relay...Inverse-Arp..?
> That is weird. I've never seen it happen before, I would bet it's a
> 12.1
> thing.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Nigel Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 11:10 PM
> To: CCIE_Lab Group Study; Cisco Group Study; Stephen Masraum
> Cc: Bryant Andrews
> Subject: Re: Frame Relay...Inverse-Arp..?
> Stephen,
> Yep, that's exactly that happened. Here's the important
> config stuff...
> Here's the layout..
> I've got the typical hub and spoke topology frame cloud. I've got all 4
> devices
> using physical and using Inverse-Arp to dynamically activate the PVC's.
> here's the
> pertinent configs..... I ran through this a couple more times with the
> same
> result...in some
> instances it took a while but Inverse-Arp eventually worked.
> HUB router...running 12.1.4 code..
> interface Serial1
> ip address 172.16.10.1 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay IETF
> r2_01#sh frame map
> Serial1 (up): ip 172.16.10.2 dlci 201(0xC9,0x3090), dynamic,
> broadcast,
> IETF, status defined, active
> Serial1 (up): ip 172.16.10.3 dlci 301(0x12D,0x48D0), dynamic,
> broadcast,
> IETF, status defined, active
> Serial1 (up): ip 172.16.10.4 dlci 401(0x191,0x6410), dynamic,
> broadcast,
> IETF, status defined, active
> Spoke 1.. running 11.3(11a)T1
> interface Serial1
> ip address 172.16.10.2 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay IETF
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.10.4 102
> r4_02c#sh fram map
> Serial1 (up): ip 172.16.10.1 dlci 102(0x66,0x1860), dynamic,
> broadcast,
> IETF, status defined, active
> Serial1 (up): ip 172.16.10.4 dlci 102(0x66,0x1860), static,
> IETF, status defined, active
> Spoke 2.....running 11.3(11a)T1
> interface Serial0
> ip address 172.16.10.4 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.10.2 104
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.10.3 104
> !
> r1_fs#sh fram map
> Serial0 (up): ip 172.16.10.1 dlci 104(0x68,0x1880), dynamic,
> broadcast,, status defined, active
> Serial0 (up): ip 172.16.10.2 dlci 104(0x68,0x1880), static,
> CISCO, status defined, active
> Serial0 (up): ip 172.16.10.3 dlci 104(0x68,0x1880), static,
> CISCO, status defined, active
> Anyone got any IOS bug reports on this one...?
> Nigel.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:31 GMT-3